Air Force veteran Michael Wimberly wrote a compelling article for Chron recently opposing open carry from the perspective of someone who is properly trained in the use and care of firearms.

In a sentiment that many have expressed, Wimberly questioned the logic of open carry as a deterrent, stating that the most likely outcome of someone carrying a weapon in public is the discomfort of those around him.

What I will not be comfortable with if open carry becomes law in Texas, as some state lawmakers are proposing, is encountering a gun carrier in a restaurant sporting a holstered 9mm with an extended magazine. I will wonder: Is this person really licensed, or is he an unlicensed bad guy casing the premises to commit crime or an act of terror? Is he of a proper mental state or has his mental health changed since he was licensed? Does he properly maintain and clean his weapon as required? Is his weapon housing a chambered round? When was the last time he qualified on a firing range? Can he really be trusted to take on the gut-wrenching task he obviously seeks? Should the business owner check the licenses and qualifications of gun-holstered patrons before allowing them to enter armed?

If you’re anything like me you shook your head in agreement every time you passed a question mark while reading that.

Wimberly also questioned the mentality of the new-age ammosexual:

The mentality of many gun owners today is a far cry from what I knew growing up. What is heard from open-carry fans seems to be a fascination with guns – a swagger-inspired fascination that possessing a pistol in a public forum will make everyone safe. The chutzpah of open-carry advocates: We will be the protecters against the bad guy!

That’s about it in a nutshell, isn’t it? We as a people don’t need you to protect us, you’re putting us in harm’s way when you draw your weapon to “protect others,” we have no idea what your qualifications are, and you don’t have the right to make life and death decisions for us.

Right-wing gun nuts managed to disregard the entire argument. Rather than respect the opinion of a properly trained veteran, they disregard it and attack his credentials. Rather than listen to the coherent argument of someone with a real-life perspective, they ask questions like, “Would you ride a motorcycle without a helmet?”

Here are some examples of how hard-headed the ammosexuals are. Their unwillingness to evolve is astounding:

This guy contends that because Wimberly qualified as “sharpshooter” and not “expert” that his position is invalid. Apparently the military doesn’t teach any form of firearms safety or common sense to soldiers who qualify as what he describes as “mediocre.”

To put that in perspective, a majority of police officers will never fire their weapon in the line of duty. Does that make them less qualified to do so, or do they consistently train and re-certify?

Never mind ANYTHING you just said, Mr. Wimberly. There’s bad guys out there, and if I don’t have a “hot weapon,” there could be death and destruction of epic proportions.

These two points are parroted over and over again. “He’s no expert,” and “bad guys have guns” seem to be sufficient enough for those over-compensating meatheads who don’t understand that we as a society are tired of deciding if they’re common imbeciles who think they’re tough guys because they have a gun or lunatics on the verge of a psychotic break.

Leave your guns at home. If someone pulls a weapon on me and demands my wallet I’ll give it to them. Five minutes later everything in it will be cancelled and not a single bullet needs to fly.